In November, it was reported that the European Commission is seeking to have 'racism' outlawed throughout the European Union (1). If adopted, these draft proposals would have implications for freedom of expression in Britain, and for the policies which eventually ensue from political discussions, whether free or fearful, wide-ranging or constrained.
The EU's Action Plan Against Racism is intended to 'harmonise' member states' varying race relations laws, using the exceedingly (if understandably) restrictive German code as the model. The Plan is based largely on the 1998 report of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (2).
The Plan defines racism and xenophobia as aversion to individuals because of "race, colour, descent, religion or belief, national or ethnic origin". Racism and xenophobia would become serious crimes in Britain for the first time, with a prison sentence of two years or more, while normal crimes would be treated more harshly if there was thought to be a racial motivation. Many of the crimes listed in the draft are already offences under British law, but the EU legislation would criminalise many activities presently legal in the UK, such as "public insults" of minority groups, "public condoning [sic] of war crimes" and "public dissemination of tracts, pictures, or other material containing expression of racism or xenophobia" (which would cover Internet sites) (3).

The EU context
The Action Plan should be seen in the context of other EU attempts to de-Europeanise Europe. In 1999, a general anti-discrimination clause was inserted into the Amsterdam Treaty (Article 13), and the British government must comply with this by July 2003. 100m Euros have been earmarked by the European Parliament over the next six years to implement Article 13 (4). ECU385m of European Social Fund money was used between 1995 and 1999 "for groups facing specific difficulties in the labour market", and a further 2,847bn Euros is earmarked for the same purpose between 2000 and 2006 - although some of this Social Fund money has been and will be used to assist other groups (5). The Action Plan will probably be backed up by the planned EU-wide arrest warrant now being rushed through in the wake of the 11th September atrocities, under which British citizens could theoretically be extradited to other EU countries for any of 32 offences, including 'racism' or 'xenophobia', even if the offence has not taken place in the country making the application (6).
The EU is not the only supranational European organisation that has been trying consistently to silence debate about race amongst Westerners. At a meeting in Budapest on 23rd November, 26 member states of the 43 nation Council of Europe (which is independent from, although closely connected to, the EU) signed a 'cybercrime' convention which is partly intended to outlaw publication of 'racist' or 'hate' material on the Internet (7).

The effects on free speech
As with all such plans, superficially the aims seem laudable. Who would not want to imprison or otherwise punish white Yahoos who attack people because of the colour of their skin? What reasonable person would wish to "publicly insult" members of other groups?
But there is already scope under existing UK law for thugs to be punished for either violent attacks or gratuitous racial abuse; there is no need to adopt further laws, which can only have the effect of further stifling public discussion and driving frustration underground, whence it could emerge in more dangerous forms. The whole legislative package is self-defining, and couched in politically loaded jargon rather than objective legal terminology. Physical crimes like murder or embezzlement can obviously be legislated against (if not prevented!) with relative ease, but how can one define an abstraction like 'racism' in satisfactory legal terms?
The term is even more vague than most concepts, with some using it as either an objective or even a positive term, to denote simply consciousness of or belief in racial or ethnic differences. Today, it is normally understood to mean the belief that there are 'superior' and 'inferior' races, and that different treatment should be meted out to different races accordingly (8). In the fevered imaginations of some on the Left, 'racism' is taken to mean pathological fear or hatred on the part of white people for members of other physically distinguishable groups, with the implication that those allegedly guilty of such feelings might not be averse to ethnic cleansing and genocide if they had the opportunity.
The vaguely medical-sounding expression 'xenophobia' is even less precise, and would seem to be strictly applicable only to psychopaths, rather than, as it is at present, to anyone who is opposed for any reason to mass immigration or the looming European Empire. 'Public insult' is likewise obviously devised merely to manipulate the terms of any serious debate about immigration by implying that anyone who distinguishes between one group of people and another is insulting one or more groups, rather than describing or offering an opinion about such groups.
The use of such loose terminology would mean that the proposed law would be subject to many different interpretations, depending on the local circumstances, the predilections of the judge and jury and (no doubt) the identity and connections of the defendant. And because racism is generally regarded as being something white people do to other peoples, the new laws would be applied disproportionately against indigenous Europeans.
The end result of such misrepresentation of opinions and criminalisation of free speech can only be to criminalise and so circumscribe thought, as people censor themselves in order to stay within the law. The Commission's judicial spokesman said that the draft law "totally respects free speech", but either he is sorely mistaken or he is being economical with the actualite.

Banning ourselves
The EU proposals are riddled with paradoxes, and would inevitably mean abuses and injustices. While it is vain to hope for consistency from human beings, these inherent contradictions are just too glaring to ignore.
There are plenty of specific paradoxes and problems. Some have asked how the proposed laws would affect Islamic fundamentalist groups who promote anti-Christian and anti-Semitic views. What would be done about Christian groups who wanted to employ only Christians, or Jewish groups that wanted to employ only Jews? Would Silvio Berlusconi, an EU head of state, be prosecuted for saying that Western civilisation is "superior" to Muslim civilisation? How would Eurosceptics fare, whom internationalists say are motivated primarily by "aversion" to other peoples? Could people be prosecuted for snobbishness? How could it all possibly be policed? How much would it all cost? Even allowing for a degree of wilful blindness and copious amounts of hypocrisy in order to shield members of the elite, such questions will have no easy answers.
But the central paradox is that by banning 'racism' EU legislators would effectively be banning Western civilisation itself. Like all civilisations, Western civilisation is the creation of a particular type of people in a particular place under particular historical circumstances over a protracted period. It is therefore the product of one race. Western civilisation is a compound of classicism, Christianity and the ideas of the Enlightenment, and Westerners are those whose various national cultures have been exposed to all of these three influences (albeit in differing degrees) over many centuries. Those whose local cultures have had less exposure to these influences will inevitably find it more difficult to fit in, and will necessarily be at a social and cultural disadvantage - however hard they try, and of course multiculturalism encourages non-Westerners to avoid being assimilated.
The very liberalism, democracy and human rights concepts that legislators cite as their reasons for passing such ill-conceived laws are themselves products uniquely of Western civilisation. The legislators would really be passing a law against themselves - although no doubt they would escape its provisions and internal logic for a long time because of their privileged positions.
Monomaniacs and reverse racists now routinely describe all Western institutions and traditions, and all white populations as 'racist'. Any institution, profession, group, sub-culture or academical discipline that is made up largely of white people is now considered to be ipso facto 'racist'- however hard the persons concerned try to follow every politically correct chimera. And of course, as with the West generally, there is some truth in this charge; every institution, tradition or profession reflects the ideas, prejudices and histories of its founders. For example, lawyers who most resemble the founders of the legal profession culturally will generally tend to do better within the profession than those without that inbuilt advantage.
In this country alone, the following institutions and groups have all been described as 'racist' in the recent past: the monarchy (9), the House of Lords, the House of Commons, the Church of England, the Catholic church, the defence forces, the Lord Chancellor's office, the Crown Prosecution Service, the prison service, the Conservative Party, the arts establishment, the theatrical profession, the nursing profession, doctors, the NHS as a whole, teachers, university lecturers, public schools, the legal profession, the media, the police, the construction industry, the environmentalist movement, people who live in the country, working-class whites, and yet more. In last year's Parekh Report, all of Britain's history was found wanting in this way, and it was suggested that we casually "jettison" it. Similar processes are at work in all Western countries.
Everyone is denouncing everyone else for racism - although the Commission for Racial Equality, being a publicly-funded body, sensibly refuses to investigate most allegations of Labour racism (10). It is wryly amusing to record that even Tony Blair's special advisers and the Parliamentary Labour Party have been described as institutionally racist. The BBC's own director-general described his largely ultra-Leftwing colleagues as "hideously white". Bradford's Asians were so concerned about the racism they believed existed within the Bradford Labour Club that they set the building alight during last summer's riots, and their political allies had to be rescued by firemen. The Council of Europe has condemned Labour for making public debate take on "an increasingly intolerant line with at times racist and xenophobic overtones". The Liberal Democrats have not escaped either, with local activists in London, Liverpool and Sheffield being accused of stirring up racial antagonism. Even the Commission for Racial Equality has been accused of racism, because 70% of its staff are non-white in a country that is over 90% white. The European Commission has itself been a loser in this unwinnable game, with its Captain Euro propaganda cartoon condemned as both 'anti-Semitic' and 'racist'. No doubt Anna Diamontopoulou, the European Commissioner responsible for the Commission's race initiatives, has been, or soon will be, condemned for racism for daring to suggest that Muslims should "respect our values" (11). The 'thieves' are falling out as the PC revolution devours its own.

The Right proven right
The second major paradox is that these laws are being proposed at a time when some on the Left have begun to realise that their Rightwing opponents, whom they have long demonised, were right about race all along. As the head of the Leftwing think tank the Institute for Public Policy Research put it bluntly, "We will look back on the year 2001 as the year when the story of diversity and tolerance was exposed as a fiction" (12). This year, we have seen the unusual spectacle of Labour MPs, and even the Home Secretary, calling for mandatory language tests and loyalty oaths for immigrants and saying that British Asian women should be strongly encouraged not to import husbands from Asia. At the time of writing, Radio 4 is trailing a forthcoming programme on the theme "Is it time for racism to become acceptable?" Of course, these are merely straws in the wind, but it does look like the wind may be changing. Reality cannot be ignored for ever.
The debate has clearly moved on. We are moving into an era when many more Westerners, even financially insulated ones, will realise that restricting immigration and opposing multiculturalism is actually not blind prejudice at all, but merely commonsense. There will be rearguard resistance yet for many years to come, as the financial and emotional vested interests struggle to retain their comfortable, oracular status, but there can be no doubt that the days of multiculturalism are drawing to a close. Like all legislators, those propelling the European Commission proposals are somewhat behind the times.
But perhaps we are doomed to experience a period of repression unseen in Europe since the Middle Ages before EU and domestic legislators come to their senses. The political correctness that drives this race mania is not a rational ideology, but a kind of secular religion, with its own legends, delusions, totems, taboos, saints and holy texts. Like all such religious frenzies, it cannot be reasoned away, and may have to be allowed to work itself out. It is bound to terminate itself messily and gracelessly - we can but hope that its inevitable demise will not be too long delayed.

Derek Turner is the Editor of Right Now

(1) See, for instance, Daily Telegraph, 29th November 2001
(2) This body presently has 21 full time staff (plus several staff on auxiliary contracts). Up to the end of 2000, the Centre had cost EU taxpayers 10.5m Euros. Somewhat amusingly, one part of the Centre's two-part 1998 report is entitled Looking Reality in The Face (European Commission Report to the Council, the European Parliament, Economic and Social Committee and Committee of the Regions, 6th October 2000)
(3) Daily Telegraph, 29th November 2001, ibid
(4) Daily Telegraph, 12th July 2001
(5) European Commission Report on the Implementation of the Action Plan Against Racism, 6th March 2001
(6) See Daily Telegraph, 20th November 2001 and Daily Mail, 12th December 2001
(7) New York Times, 10th November 2001. For the Council of Europe view, see  http://press.coe.int/cp/2001/903a(2001).htm The 'racism' provisions will be contained in a side protocol, presently being drafted, and which will then need to be signed by five states, three of which must be Council members. It may be of interest to note that on the 28th November, the Council's Committee of Ministers called on member states to offer "subsidiary protection" to non-refugee 'asylum-seekers'
(8) See, for instance, Roger Scruton's definition in A Dictionary of Political Thought, Macmillan, London, 1983 and 1996. Scruton believes that racialism and racism are two different concepts, the former merely a belief in differences, the latter a desire to grant rights to members of one race that are denied to members of other races
(9) See Evening Standard, 6th December 2001, for a good example of the genre
(10) Sunday Telegraph, 29th April 2001
(11) Quoted in the Daily Telegraph, 10th November 2001
(12) Guardian, 4th December 2001